However, IE9 isn't quite up to par with other consumer internet browsers on the market

Microsoft's
Internet Explorer 9, Microsoft Corp.'s latest and greatest browser released today in
finalized form. So why should we care?

Well two stories dominated when it comes to IE9. The first the media will
be sure to talk about; the other you'll probably hear little talk of.

I. IE9 as a Consumer Browser -- Not Worth It

First the more obvious story -- Microsoft is improving, but arguably not fast
enough. IE9 looks and feels like a modern browser.

It also looks and feels noticeably slower than Chrome, Opera, or even Firefox. While the gap is not as wide as in
past versions (e.g. IE8, or esp. IE 7) it is visibly apparent. Open a
page on DailyTech in Chrome, and you see text literally seconds a
second or two later. Open the same page in IE 9 and you get a distinct
pause as several seconds pass, before article text loads.

This qualitative example is indicative of our test drives of IE9 as a whole.
While the speed isn't horrible, if you've been using a modern browser
like Chrome or Opera, you'll definitely get frustrated at the ever-present
delay.

We're still in the process of testing the beast, but it looks to support only
about a quarter of the HTML5 standard, according to the test The HTML5 Test.
Microsoft would argue that's because the standard isn't fully defined.
But that seems a weak excuse -- that hasn't stopped Opera, Google, and
Mozilla from not only taking an active part in the standard, but also support
it more fully.

Microsoft finds itself in a familiar role of publicly arguing why it shouldn't
have to fully standards -- but in an interesting twist it's now committing
itself to a bipolar effort of quietly trying to catch up in these same
standards, as well. The results, as one might imagine, are mixed.

Aside from speed and standards, Microsoft's browser has a clean look to it. Its sharp defined lines
bring to mind Microsoft's Metro GUI style, which the company used extensively
on the defunct Zune and the active Windows Phone 7.

The browser lacks, though, cutting edge features being implemented elsewhere
like tab stacking/grouping. And while ostensibly it offers
"add-ons"/"extensions", its
catalog is anemic to say the least. Firefox, Opera, and
Chrome users will wince at the lack of ad/JavaScript blocking.

Yet another place where Microsoft falls behind is in the installation process.
IE 9 requires a number of Windows Updates in order be able to install.
For us, one of these updates had been failing several times in Windows
Update, so this was a rather painful process. If Google, Mozilla, and
Opera can make stand-alone installers, it's inexcusable that Microsoft, the
world's largest software company, can't.

II. IE9 as a Work Browser -- Not so Shabby

So, the other story here is how IE 9 fares in the business setting. While
it languished in the world of home users, Microsoft remains strong in the
workplace.

Overall Firefox and Chrome can be managed, but require a lot more IT effort
than IE 9. Internet Explorer remains the king of business browsers in terms
of manageability, security, and reliability. When you factor in that many
business have built their portals' web code to run optimally in Internet
Explorer, IE 9 gains yet more of an advantage -- though perhaps a bit unfair
one.

At the end of the day, IE 9's improvements will really start to shine for
business users. While IE 9 may seem dated and tardy as a consumer
browser, in an IT setting we're used to getting less. If you were stuck
with IE 8 before, IT department willing, you'll get a huge boost with IE 9.

Most in the media, in their rush to note IE 9's insufficiencies from a home
user perspective, won't stop to recognize that it is an excellent browser from
a business perspective. We feel this is an equally compelling story and
definitely worth noting.

III. Conclusions

Microsoft has two key strengths when it comes to browsers -- its strong
business reputation and the fact that, for better or worse, in the U.S. it can
still bundle its browser as the exclusive pre-installed browser in Windows.

The company currently owns between 55 and 65 percent of the browser market,
depending on whose numbers you trust. This dominant positions in
underpinned by those aforementioned strengths.

Are people really to lazy to go out and download a third party browser?
In many cases the answer is "yes" (though obviously not for
most of our readers). Thus IE 9 will eventually roll out to these users
through the Windows Update process and Microsoft will hang on to its lead.

On the other hand, Microsoft likely recognizes the writing on the wall.
Home users are becoming increasingly educated with each passing decade,
and it can't hope to keep relying on its pre-packaged approach to be able to
push a sub-par product indefinitely.

In that regard IE 9 is perhaps a sign that Microsoft is getting serious about
performance and standards. And while it’s still far behind in these
categories, its large market share arguably buys it the time it needs to catch
up.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: However, IE9 isn't quite up to par with other consumer internet browsers on the market

Sure, indeed. It does not have any version that runs on XP, unlike all of its competitors. Sorry, MAJOR world-wide fail at this point in time..... Meanwhile, IE8 is a bloated, slow and buggy mess, regardless of OS, -- compared with its fleet-footed competitors. Now that IE9 is released, MS will no doubt leave IE8 in its neglected unfinished state.

XP users don't care about new software anyway so why bother with releasing new IE for them? XP users care about legacy software only, this is why they run XP in the first place. MS move is 100% logical and justified here, got to admit

I'm with Pirks on this one. Windows XP is now 10 years old, and people are complaining that Microsoft's latest browser isn't compatible with it? Then people complain of the bloat in Microsoft's products that is caused by legacy code.

To reiterate the point that Pirks made, how many XP users are actually up-to-scratch with their updates anyway? Who uses an XP machine to run the latest and greatest applications and DX11 games? Oh, wait....

My XP box is fully up-to-date and is still my main machine (built Aug 2005, though with a more recent graphics card and hard-drive). It will run pretty much anything satisfactorily, and as for DX11 games, I do use it for games but the only recent one I'm especially interested in is Civ V, for which it meets or exceeds all the minimum requirements.

I used to build a new box every two or three years but it just doesn't seem necessary these days when my five year old one is still working fine. Perhaps when Civ V is fully released (all the expansion packs), I might take the plunge then, but for now I'll stick with XP and my browser of choice, Opera.

Plenty of people use XP with the latest and greatest software. I have yet to ever play a game (or run any app for that matter) that didn't run on XP.

Some of us also have several computers at our house (seven at mine), and its just not practical to upgrade all of them. Its easier for me to just put chrome on all of them, and forget about IE. Both my wife and I are still using XP at out workplaces as well.

I have read your posts on this topic and I am still confused as to why you support Microsoft on this. As consumer it would be in your best interest to support longer product support cycles.

Have you been tricked by the marketing world to believe that newer is always better?

Remember that while XP debuted ten years ago, Microsoft did not replace the OS until 2006. If you built a machine with decent specs 5-6 years ago XP wold have been your only Microsoft OS option. Machines built around that time still have plenty of processing power for internet and application usage. All those users with XP want (and there are hundreds of millions left) is to use a broswer that will support the latest standards so they can view things on the internet. Since Microsoft said sorry they are forced to turn to alternative browsers.

Expect to see an accelerated decline in IE usage as all the XP diehards move over (if they haven't already) to other browsers.

It is common knowledge that all the "new" browsers ff4 chrome that are gonna be compatible on xp are going to be completely different with little to no improvement. No acceleration or any of that other stuff, so what the point of even making it for xp in the first place??? MS is doing the right thing it's trying to push things forward and give more incentive to move to 7 chrome and ff4 have no reason to do the same.

Bloat isnt caused by legacy code. Win 98 is 100MB. Win XP is about 1GB. The core components of each are less than half of that (the system32 folder, etc). Yet the WinSXS folder on windows 7 is many many gigabytes. It has nothing to do with supporting legacy code or legacy hardware.

Why should I be forced to pay to -1 - upgrade my PC to run something other than XP - it works fine.2 - Have to upgrade to a newer PC - again my XP machine works fine.3 - I do not need cutting edge speed. And like most people I do internet exploring, email, Word, and Excel on my XP machine. It works and it has worked for many years.4 - If I had a car from 1980, I could still put gas in it, change the oil, and use it everyday if I wanted. Why do I need to get new electronics do keep going?

IE 8 also works, I do not need more. But if there became some virus that made IE8 not work, then I'm screwed. No supported from MS anymore.

Yet again back to the 1980 car. I can still get parts if it needs repair. Why not support the XP and IE8 to keep my old PC going?Why will I be forced to, and here's the thing, forced to BUY and UPGRADE??

It works fine as it is. Especially when people have to pay $4 gas, and food costs more, and here's my XP working fine. But if there becomes a security issue, I'm forced to upgrade. Nothing else in my house forces me to do that!

If the old TV were to break, then I'd have to get another one. Or likewise if the old refridge broke, I might have to get a new one. And if the PC took a dump, I'd have to get a new PC.But if the PC is working why do I need to get a new one? And why can't I get support for the XP system? That is the problem.

Actually, using your car example: It's more like the new model coming out with anti-lock breaks, and you complaining that you are being forced to get a new model car in order to get the newest feature (a security feature even at that).

Additionally with your car: Newer vehicles are much more difficult to hotwire, but old vehicles still suffer from the security flaws that make hotwiring possible. Can you simply go to your 1980 car manufacturer and have them change the wiring, and add electronic safety system because you're entitled to not have "flaws"?

Or how about the chassis flaws when it comes to crashes? Are you entitled to a free chassis upgrade on your 1980 vehicle because your current chassis has the flaws that it doesn't have effective "crush zones"?

The engineering required to implement these features USUALLY come with the necessity of a brand new model.

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't hold. And MOST of the household items you have follow this same pattern. Sure, all of the items have different "lifespan" timelines, but such is the nature of each individual item type. Comparing them based on equivalent timelines is asinine.

Don't take my comments to mean that I don't think IE9 incompatible with XP is a huge mistake... because I DO think it's a huge mistake. But your argument is a weak one.

It's a mistake because many businesses still support XP for important reasons... not the least of which is legacy software compatibility. Security is often a second thought to the large issue of financial investment.

In my office, we still use Visual Studio 2005. Have you ever used 2005 on Vista or Win7? Heck, have you ever even used 2008 on either? Talk about counter-productive. Ultimately, to even make life half as efficient as on XP we have to turn off UAC... but we're still only talking HALF as efficient.

That's just Visual Studio (and its cost can be mitigated with a MSDN subscription), but it still illustrates the point... like it or not, XP still has its place. Win7/Vista was too significant of a platform change to justify attempting to keep the same OS lifecycles.

XP needs a few more years while business-class software gains refinement on Win7. As a consumer platform, Win7 is fine, but given that most IE users are still businesses - not supporting XP is a huge mistake.

quote: Windows XP is now 10 years old, and people are complaining that Microsoft's latest browser isn't compatible with it?

Well Jason's write-up says that it's best for business use. Most businesses are still on XP. If Microsoft wants businesses to adopt IE9, they're gonna have to make it compatible with XP. I'm not sure the strategy of "encouraging" companies to upgrade to Win 7 by making IE9 not work with XP is gonna work. It's kind of a moot point right now though, since practically no business is going to install a .0 release if their work portal depends on it.

quote: Is 10 years not long enough?

I think this is the new reality of software. It used to be that computers and software progressed so quickly that it was worth upgrading every few years. But since about the mid-2000s, computers have been "fast enough" for all but a few specialized applications. XP on a 1.6-2 GHz Core or even P4 is more than enough for 90% of business use. They're not gonna upgrade from that just because Intel wants to sell an i5 processor or Microsoft wants to sell a copy of Windows 7.

Most hardware that companies buy is expected to last 5-20 years. Computers and software used to be the exception, typically a 3 year cycle. But looking ahead I think they will normalize to the 5-20 year timeframe of other hardware. If a software vendor isn't willing to accommodate companies in their desire for a slower upgrade cycle, they'll go out of business as companies give their money to software vendors who will accommodate them.

quote: If a software vendor isn't willing to accommodate companies in their desire for a slower upgrade cycle, they'll go out of business as companies give their money to software vendors who will accommodate them.

Which in turn further delays the advances in technology until you hit (what feels like) stagnation.

quote: Most hardware that companies buy is expected to last 5-20 years.

I hope you are joking, this is not 1995. From my experience refreshes have become smaller and smaller over the years, to the point where for front line worker machines 5+ years would be pushing it.

Nobody in their right mind would expect these kind of machines to work for 20 years. In fact it can be even less cost effective. You now have to hire more workers to test software and such across various lines, let alone the support issues across a vast array of OS/software that can compile during that time.

I think MS went the correct route here. IE9 now boasts probably the best security on the market, and that was just not possible with the underpinnings of Windows XP.

GPU acceleration is a similar issue, they could have gone back and made a half backed solution ala Firefox for XP , or they could focus on a full scale solution using newer and better API's from Vista/7. (and so far it has shown, GPU acceleration seems the most stable on IE9 so far)

Many of the things that has made IE9 so great are either not possible in XP, or would be taking a step back in favor of backwards compatibility.

You can't stay on XP forever, and as time goes on and support diminishes, businesses are not going to have a choice. At some point its going to become more expensive to maintain current systems.

I work with the latest and arguably the best graphic software on the market from "Corel" like "painter" "draw" etc. still on XP machine because frankly I never interact with operating system in any meaningful way at all. For me the process is very simple, turn on the PC; launch a program; work for six hours; save the project; shut down PC; profit.

Yeah by the end of the year the company I work for is going to Windows 7. Windows XP is holding back what I can do on my work PC. I have a quad core CPU, 4GB of RAM, and a 1GB graphics card. With a 32-bit OS I can't see all my memory and any task larger than 2GB of memory crashes. This directly effects my work.

I know I'm the exception, not the rule though. For Excel, Word, and Powerpoint, Windows XP 32-bit is plenty. But still, its old. There comes a point that its time to upgrade. And that time has come.

quote: I'm with Pirks on this one. Windows XP is now 10 years old, and people are complaining that Microsoft's latest browser isn't compatible with it? Then people complain of the bloat in Microsoft's products that is caused by legacy code. Is 10 years not long enough?

"Windows XP" is not 10 years old. Although RTM was released in August 2001, making it technically less than 10 years old, this is not what I mean.

The operating system that is called "Windows XP" today typically refers to Windows XP SP2/SP3. Windows XP SP2 was arguably as big a refresh as Windows Vista to Windows 7 was.

No one is running this 10-year-old OS that is being used to justify the non-support of anything pre-Vista. SP3 was released in 2008, and until last year, you could still get it pre-installed on computers from Dell, HP, and Lenovo. So, not supporting those users is simply unwise.

Personally, I welcome the death of XP, and use 7 64bit. But over half of all computers are still using XP (last year, MS said 74% of all work computers were still on XP). So can we stop pretending XP is dead already?

Technicalities aside, it is a 10 year old OS, and everything released after that was merely building on top of that 10 year old base.

The fact that many typically refer to XP as SP2/SP3 (whoever those people may be), is completely irrelevant. Thats not how OS design works.. The basis of Windows XP has remained relatively unchanged since 2001 (driver model, kernel/user levels etc etc), almost 10 years ago. (older if you consider its relation to Windows 2000)

FYI They are supporting the users, all the way up to Internet Explorer 8, the last version MS specifically supports(and will continue to do so). Considering it was released with IE6, I think support promises have been more than met.

Microsoft might be trying to kill XP deliberately. They've been trying to convince people to move on for a while now. Remember: in terms of age, using XP now is like using Windows 98 in 2007. Nobody did that. People just became very attached to it because Vista took so long and had a (only fractionally deserved) bad reputation.

He is just flat out pretending to be knowing what he is talking about when he clearly does not.

Perhaps he means some sofware designed for XP will not work on Vista/7.

Every single version of Windows still supports 32bit code and will continue to do so for years to come. (whether its done natively or not)

Windows 8 could very well be the end of 32bit Windows (i.e 64 bit processors / drivers/ etc etc will be required), but 32 bit applications will live on in some kind of compatibility mode for some time.

However business customers are still mostly on Windows XP. Our organization has over 600 machines. We only recently started getting Windows 7 because most specialty business software did not work on anything above Windows XP. Only after we were no longer allowed to purchase XP licenses did we start to upgrade and only then did some of our software vendors start to upgrade their software. We are now at about 5% of Windows 7 machines. Remember, for you at home it may cost you around 1200 bucks to upgrade but for a business who has MANY machines, it costs a lot more to purchase new machines. We are slowly phasing out older XP machines with Windows 7.

I will say, my FF4 works in both XP and Windows 7...this is just another step for MS to try and force business that are being hit by the bad economy to purchase newer software.